I found the following on rec.sport.triathlon and thought some of you would find it amusing. Anyone
care to write something in the same vein about helmet debates?
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:By the way, you bring up a good question: What is the reasoning behind
some
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:races being draft-legal and some being draft-illegal? And, relatedly,
why
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:can't there be an "industry standard?"
Tom (not advocating anything naughty!)
Now there's a can of worms! You'll find that the adoption of rules which allow drafting for pro
(and now some amateur) events has been hotly debated here.I'm one of the one who feels that drafting certainly makes for an interesting event, but veers too
far away from the intent of triathlon, which is essentially a time trial event.That usually brings in comments about drafting being allowed in the swim and run, so why not on
the bike. Then some people will say that the draft doesn't make as big of a difference in the
other events. Then someone will say that they can swim 30% faster when they are drafting, which
someone else will call a blatant lie. Then someone will say that swimmers get more benefit from
the wet suit than they ever could from drafting. Then someone will say that wet suits should only
be allowed when the water is under 59F. Then someone will say that clydesdales
(heavier weight athletes)
Quoted message said:shouldn't wear wet suits, since they're buoyant enough anyway. Then the whole "why have a
Clydesdale division?" question comes up. Brian will then point out than Marx and Lenin were
blatant drafters, that capitalism and the U.S. will fail due to clydesdales, and that referees
should ride the course alone on dirt bikes, randomly firing handguns at anyone they catch
drafting. Which bring us to the value of quality engineering in sunglasses and what that's truly
worth...See what you've started?